On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 3:13 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had already written the patch for immediate reaping addressing the > below feedback before I saw the emails that said everyone is happy > with using hastup in lazy_scan_[no]prune() in a preliminary patch. Let > me know if you have a strong preference for reordering. Otherwise, I > will write the three subsequent patches on top of this one.
I don't know if it rises to the level of a strong preference. It's just a preference. > Ah, I like this a lot. Attached patch does this. I've added a modified > version of the comment you suggested. My only question is if we are > losing something without this sentence (from the old comment): > > - * ... They don't need to be left in place as LP_DEAD items > until VACUUM gets > - * around to doing index vacuuming. > > I don't feel like it adds a lot, but it is absent from the new > comment, so thought I would check. I agree that we can leave that out. It wouldn't be bad to include it if someone had a nice way of doing that, but it doesn't seem critical, and if forcing it in there makes the comment less clear overall, it's a net loss IMHO. > Hmm. Yes. I suppose I was trying to find something to validate. Is it > worth checking that the line pointer is not already LP_UNUSED? Or is > that a bit ridiculous? I think that's worthwhile (hence my proposed wording). -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
